Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

Judicial hegemony?

The court has observed that the unchecked and rampant exercise of the power to include laws in the Ninth Schedule can lead to parliamentary hegemony. Do legislators lack the wisdom and commitment to undertake a meaningful scrutiny of a bill before taking a decision to place it under the Ninth Schedule? Is the judiciary alone balanced enough to decide on issues involving people's welfare and rights? By agreeing to such an assumption, do we not subject ourselves to a possible judicial hegemony?

All legislators may not be intellectuals but we can certainly boast of a Parliament that has a good number of members of high calibre, intelligence, and concern for social welfare. And they have the ability to separate milk from water.

K. Subramanian,
Chennai

Applying the yardstick of violation of fundamental rights to weigh social legislation is not only flawed but also regressive. A well-meant social legislation may violate the fundamental right to equality of a few individuals or communities but will definitely empower a larger section of society and protect the fundamental right to survival.

S. Kasimayan,
New Delhi

The judgment has referred to an egalitarian society where citizens will be equally free from coercion or restriction by the state. But it will be pertinent to point out that Tamil Nadu's law providing 69 per cent reservation in jobs and educational institutions was enacted to render justice to those affected by discrimination, coercion, and restriction practised by society for hundreds of years.

One wonders why the judiciary has not considered the denial of equality to some sections for centuries.

K. Lakshmanan,
Srirangam

Everything, including people's expectations and aspirations, changes with time. We may have reservations against politicians but the fact remains that they are the ones who represent the masses and understand their aspirations best. If they are made dysfunctional in the name of the basic structure doctrine, in the absence of non-fulfilment of people's aspirations, we should be ready to face more violence and turmoil in society. The judgment puts a check on laws meant for the empowerment of the weaker sections.

Virendra Kumar,
Dehra Dun

The courts are not responsible to the common people. But politicians are. They have to face the people at least once in five years but judges need not answer the public. In a country where people decide preferences, how can courts produce such verdicts?

What is the role of the people in a democracy? In a democracy it is the people, not courts, who are most powerful.

P.G. Malini,
Thiruvananthapuram

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Reclaiming jurisdiction
India and APEC
Elite activism: can't vote, can vet
Assam after the ULFA strikes
Isolated Bush faces rebellion over Iraq
Corrections and Clarifications
No blanket immunity
Judicial hegemony?

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu